IYK gives control of UAS proposal to committee

While the task of applying to become one of six FAA unmanned aerial systems test sites has fallen to a committee, the Inyokern Airport is still the one that stands to benefit from the potential designation.

While the task of applying to become one of six FAA unmanned aerial systems test sites has fallen to a committee, the Inyokern Airport is still the one that stands to benefit from the potential designation.

But the question that arises is how do you keep a very confidential process — where proprietary information is closely guarded as to not give potential competitors an inside track — private while dealing with a public agency, such as the Indian Wells Valley Airport District, which runs IYK.

The problem was the topic of a special meeting Wednesday where the board of directors evaluated possible options to keep abreast of the application process while not inadvertently making public any sensitive data.

Board President Russ Bates said Eileen Shibley, who runs the UAS Committee, has the authority to submit items for the proposal without first coming to the full board so long as the board gave her permission.

“That appears to be the most efficient way of doing things, without having the board meetings every time they need to press the send button,” Bates said. “You may worry that is obligating the district to something, but it’s not. We’re making a proposal. If we get designated, then it’s going to come before the full board on whether or not to accept it.”

The board voted 5-0 to accept those terms as well as to receive periodic, nonbinding updates from the committee about the progress.

There isn’t a timetable for updates, since the proposal progress is very fluid.

Director Steve Morgan asked if there could be a rough idea as to when updates will come, but there wasn’t a set schedule made.

Director Axel Alvarez said he wants to make sure there is a way to speak up if there is a board member who sees the progress moving in a direction he doesn’t like.

“I just want to make sure if someone doesn’t agree with what is going on, there is some way to stop it before potentially there’s a submission,” Alvarez said.

The only solution would be to call a meeting of the Board of Directors, but the board members said that meeting will have to be done carefully as to not release information sensitive to the project.

Bates said for the most part, the committee is only submitting data to the FAA to put Inyokern into consideration for the award.

“We’re not committing to do work, we’re just saying we have this capability, our partner has that capability,” Bates said. “It’s just a qualification.”

Page 2 of 3 - The only hard part is going to be the gathering of the data in a timely manner, especially since a lot of that information is spread out between various agencies.

But on the positive side, the UAS Committee is seeing quality cooperation from places like China Lake, though the Navy is not associated with the proposal per specific FAA requirements in the request for proposal.

The UAS Committee is forging ahead with the proposal, with a deadline to submit partnerships and operations to the FAA quickly approaching on March 6.

The Committee wants to keep whom it is partnering with confidential for the time being.

“It is incumbent on us if we are going to be competitive to put out best foot forward that way,” Shibley said. “The strategy that we use going into this, who we’re partnered with and those kinds of things is not something we want to see out there. Right now, it would not give us an advantage.”

Other information regarding the process is also being kept close to the vest, as the application process is highly competitive across the United States.

“This is a true competition. We can’t let other states know what we’re doing,” said IWV Airport Board Treasurer Paul Valovich.

This becomes an issue with the IWV Airport Board of Directors. Like all California public entities, they fall under the auspices of the Brown Act, which ensures all discussions and decisions be made in a public setting. Since the application process doesn’t fall under any exceptions to the Brown Act — mainly pending litigation and personnel matters — the board can’t just get an update in closed session to keep the information guarded.

Valovich asked if there is any work around to the Brown Act problem, considering in the private sector any proposals have to be signed off by management. In this case, the management would be the airport board, which is subject to open meeting laws.

Scott Nave, legal counsel for the district, said there really isn’t.

“Unfortunately, California law does not really address this particular dilemma as it relates to public agencies, as you noted,” Nave said. “If you were one of my private clients, this wouldn’t be an issue. As a public agency, under the Brown Act, there is no exception that applies in your situation.”

Nave added, however, that drafts, notes and other memos do not have to be disclosed under the Public Information Act, so the board is free to see those so long as it doesn’t engage in an offline conversation about them that turns into a serial meeting.

Page 3 of 3 - “You do face the dilemma where you will either have to choose to delegate authority to the committee to make the final decision, final review on the application and submit it to the FAA, without full board approval in order to maintain full confidentiality, or you will have to bring it to the board in an open and public meeting in order to discuss it and review it,” Nave said.

One of the sticky points about the process and obtaining information from the committee is that there are already two board members who are members. This means that conversations between committee members and other board members have to be carefully done. This way, the board member seeking information isn’t swayed into an opinion from other board members who sit on the committee.

“The violation occurs where the thoughts, ideas opinions, (and/or) decisions of any one of those three directors is communicated either by the directors or by the other person on the project, then you have a serial meeting,” Nave said.

Likewise, board members can check out the progress in the new “war room” established in the old Texas Instruments building at IYK, but they have to be careful how they obtain information.

Since two of the board members sit on the committee, certain discussions are off limits to any other board member.

“I think we’re at the stage where we appoint the committee and trust them,” Valovich said.